Florida, U.S.A. — Historian and author Patrick Roelle lived and worked in Cairo, Egypt for two years, visiting the American Embassy weekly. The Author claims there is no more secure compound on the face of this planet. The Author believes that if it was breached, it was with the approval of the new Egyptian leaders and their military and that Libya is no different. Roelle states, “Today, more American blood saturates the sands of the Muslim World and our embassies are overrun while the military and the new leaders of Egypt and Libyacheer on the sidelines. Is the fact that it took place on the anniversary of 9-11 a coincidence? Emphatically, NO!”

In his book, the Author asks the question: How does Barack Hussein Obama, the leader of the free world, confront leaders of countries who have endorsed the very laws that encourage acts of terrorism and that have condemned him to death?

As an historian and an author, Patrick Roelle makes it clear: it does not matter what you or I believe. What does matter is what the world of Islam believes. Islamic / Muslim law does not allow a person the freedom to choose a religion.  A man has no control over his ancestry, but if his father was a Muslim., that makes him an apostate by definition in the religion of Islam and in the eyes of the Islamic / Muslim world.

The Apostate Theory points out that in Islam, apostasy is ridda , which means turning back, and to all devout Muslims, it is a profound insult to Allah. A person born of a Muslim male parent , who rejects Islam, is a murtad fitri , or natural apostate . In the Islamic societies of Saudi Arabia, Yemen,Iran, Sudan, Mauritania, Qatar, the Comoros, and the tribal regions of Iraq, Libya, Pakistan and,Afghanistan the law is explicit. Apostasy is punishable by death.

Patrick Roelle, who goes by the pen name Mr. Pat, lived and worked within the Islamic societies of the Middle East and has spent the past 24 years studying Islam’s on-going war of Jihad against the People of the Book, Christians, Jews and Pagans.

For more information about The Apostate Theory and Mr. Pat’s other books, please visit www.mrpat.us / www.authorhouse.com

The article ‘The Apostate Theory’ About Radical Islamist Is Now Available appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Rome, Italy — “Horror and indignation.” This was the initial reaction of Foreign Minister Giulio Terzi on hearing of the killing of the US Ambassador in Libya, Chris Stevens, and his three colleagues during an attack on the American Consulate in Benghazi. “I wish to offer my heartfelt condolences to the USA”, said Terzi during his mission to Malta. The Minister added that Italy “condemns most firmly this terrible attack which must be investigated in full as soon as possible.

My thoughts go out to the families of the victims of a dreadful act that has struck the people engaged in a front line role in restoring hope and support to a people who wish to build their own future of freedom and democracy.”

Terzi sent a message to the American Secretary of State Hillary Clinton expressing his “dismay and deep sadness” over the death of Chris Stevens and his colleagues in this “cowardly attack.” In his own name and that of the Italian Government, he offered his heartfelt condolences.

“In recent months”, commented Terzi, “we have all appreciated the notable professional and human qualities of Ambassador Stevens, with whom we established a close and fruitful collaboration right from the start of the Libyan crisis. With his sensitivity and his deep knowledge of Libya and the Maghreb, Ambassador Stevens made a highly important contribution to the success of the rebellion against the Gaddafi regime and the new Libya’s democratic stabilisation process.

“Italy’s firm intention is to insist with the authorities in Tripoli,” added Terzi. “We also wish to offer, if necessary, every possible help to ensure that all the facts are brought to light and that those responsible for this brutal crime against the US mission in Benghazi are brought to justice.”

Image Courtesy of  Italian Embassy

The article Italian Foreign Minister Marks Attack in US Embassy as “Dreadful” appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. – The U.S. ambassador in Libya, Christopher Stevens, and three other employees of the diplomatic mission of the United States have died after being attacked on Tuesday, in the city of Benghazi as reported on Wednesday the Interior Ministry from Libya.

Hillary Rodham Clinton made an statement condemning the violent act:

It is with profound sadness that I share the news of the death of four American personnel in Benghazi, Libya yesterday. Among them were United States Ambassador to Libya Chris Stevens and Foreign Service Information Management Officer, Sean Smith. We are still making next of kin notifications for the other two individuals. Our hearts go out to all their families and colleagues.

A 21 year veteran of the Foreign Service, Ambassador Stevens died last night from injuries he sustained in the attack on our office in Benghazi.

I had the privilege of swearing in Chris for his post in Libya only a few months ago. He spoke eloquently about his passion for service, for diplomacy and for the Libyan people. This assignment was only the latest in his more than two decades of dedication to advancing closer ties with the people of the Middle East and North Africa which began as a Peace Corps Volunteer in Morocco. As the conflict in Libya unfolded, Chris was one of the first Americans on the ground in Benghazi. He risked his own life to lend the Libyan people a helping hand to build the foundation for a new, free nation. He spent every day since helping to finish the work that he started. Chris was committed to advancing America’s values and interests, even when that meant putting himself in danger.

Sean Smith was a husband and a father of two, who joined the Department ten years ago. Like Chris, Sean was one of our best. Prior to arriving in Benghazi, he served in Baghdad, Pretoria, Montreal, and most recently The Hague.

All the Americans we lost in yesterday’s attacks made the ultimate sacrifice. We condemn this vicious and violent attack that took their lives, which they had committed to helping the Libyan people reach for a better future.

Image Courtesy of   Foreign and Commonwealth Office

The article Hillary Clinton’s Statement on the Death of US Ambassador in Libya appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — The U.S. State Department has announced the launch this Thursday in Washington of the Morocco-US Strategic Dialogue, one of less than two dozen such agreements in existence, and the only one in North Africa. The Strategic Dialogue, years in the making, is the result of focused, comprehensive leadership and cooperation by King Mohammed VI with three US Administrations to strengthen Morocco-U.S. relations and implement the two countries’ shared vision for the Middle East and North Africa.

In April 2011, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton signaled the creation of the Strategic Dialogue, recognition of more than a decade of peaceful reforms and stability under the leadership of King Mohammed VI. At that time Secretary Clinton announced, “We also look forward with great optimism to further deepening our strong and strategic partnership in working with Morocco on so many issues.” With the signing by the two countries on Thursday, September 13, the Strategic Dialogue officially begins and builds on bilateral advances already achieved, including the Morocco-US Free Trade Agreement, the Millennium Challenge Compact, and Morocco’s designation as a major non-NATO ally.

The Strategic Dialogue is a formal institutionalized framework that establishes an ongoing collaboration on issues of importance between both countries concerning global and regional issues as well as bilateral interests.  It will not be affected by changes in administration, leadership or personnel. It will allow the US to coordinate its foreign policy interests and values more closely with Morocco. This milestone comes as the Arab Spring uprisings demonstrate an even greater need for a strong, reliable, and influential US ally in the region.

“What has not changed [over the last two years] is our commitment to our partnership and friendship, which goes back to 1777 when Morocco became the very first country to recognize our new nation,” said Secretary Clinton during a visit to Rabat in February. “And the United States and Morocco have been allies and partners ever since. We collaborate on everything from trade and economic development to joint military exercises and counter terrorism efforts.”

Image Courtesy of Xiquet ([1]) [GFDL or CC-BY-SA-3.0], via Wikimedia Commons

The article US and Morocco Announce Strategic Dialogue appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Washington, U.S.A. — In the course of research on Iranian dissidents, the Iran Policy Committee (IPC) reviewed letters sent by a Senator and Members of the House of Representatives to the Secretary of State on the status of Iranian dissidents in Iraq. IPC also participated in a briefing by Members of the House. IPC research is consistent with views expressed in these letters and at the briefing.

In a June 12, 2012 letter, Senator Carl Levin (D-MI), Chairman of the Senate Armed Services Committee, wrote Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton to express his dismay over the lack of action by the Department of State to reach a decision on the status of a revocation petition filed by the main Iranian opposition group that rejects clerical rule, the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq.

Senator Levin wrote: “I have requested repeatedly that the Department of State proceed expeditiously to make a determination regarding the designation of the Mujahedeen-e Khalq (MEK) as a foreign terrorist organization…” The Senator is the latest among U.S. lawmakers to criticize the delay by the Department on the status of the MEK. The Senator also questioned the process that the State Department pursues to determine the status of the petition by the MEK.

A letter of August 2, 2012 from Members of the House spearheaded by Representative Ileana Ros-Lehtinen (R-FL), chair of the House Foreign Affairs Committee and Representative Brad Sherman (D-CA), ranking Member of the Subcommittee on Terrorism, Nonproliferation and Trade stated, “We respectfully request that the Department of State seek the Iraqi government’s agreement to and implementation of a number of humanitarian measures.

Until these measures are implemented, further voluntary relocation of Camp Ashraf residents would only exacerbate the current dreadful living conditions in Camp Liberty.” A bipartisan group of 79 Members of Congress signed the letter.

During a briefing by Members of the House on Capitol Hill in Washington on August 1, 2012, Representative Sheila Jackson-Lee (D-TX), a senior member of Committee on Homeland Security blamed Baghdad for “lack of clean water” at Camp Liberty. Also at the briefing, Representative Dana Rohrabacher (R-CA), chairman of the House Foreign Affairs Subcommittee on Oversight and Investigations, called for removal of the Mujahedeen-e-Khalq (MEK), a group to which the Iranian dissidents belong, from the U.S. terrorist list to facilitate their speedy resettlement outside of Iraq, without relocation from Ashraf to Liberty.

Through independent research, the IPC determines that residents of Liberty are only seeking minimum humanitarian improvements in their quality of life.These include ensuring satisfactory access to clean water via measures to connect Liberty to the Baghdad water network and transfer of water purification equipment from Ashraf to Liberty or acquisition elsewhere of such items; improved electrical equipment to operate air conditioners, potentially through transfer of large generators from Ashraf to Liberty; authority to construct adequate ramps and related safety infrastructure for residents of Liberty, including those who are suffering from disabilities; and transfer of forklifts from Ashraf to Liberty to facilitate handling of heavy items.

Three former U.S. military officers of the IPC issued a statement on implications of diplomatic maneuvering about the status of the Iranian dissidents in Iraq. Lt. Gen. Tom McInerney (Ret), former Assistant Vice Chief of Staff, U.S. Air Force; Maj.

Gen. Paul Vallely, (U.S. Army (Ret), former Deputy Commanding General, U.S. Army, Pacific; and Captain Charles “Chuck” Nash, U.S. Navy (Ret) said, “We are concerned that statements implying Iranian dissidents in Iraq are responsible for any delay in relocating play into the hands of those in the Government of Iraq intent on forcible relocation; on the contrary, our research finds that Baghdad is responsible for such delays because of failure to provide minimum humanitarian assistance to the dissidents.

In this respect, the Special Representative of the Secretary-General and head of the UN Assistance Mission for Iraq (UNAMI), Ambassador Martin Kobler, told the Security Council on July 19, 2012 that, “Time is running out to find a sustainable situation,…[and he urged] the Camp Ashraf residents to cooperate with the Iraqi authorities and to relocate.”

Founder and President, Global Initiative for Democracy and former Freedom House Executive Director, Bruce McColm commented on a statement of August 1, 2012 by Patrick Ventrell, Department of State Acting Deputy Spokesperson. Ventrell called on “…the Ashraf leadership to immediately resume cooperation with the relocation of residents to Camp…[Liberty].

The continued intransigence of the residents’ leadership in placing preconditions and making demands prior to any agreement to relocate…[additional] Ashraf residents is unacceptable…” McColm said “Ventrell’s statement blames the victim rather than the cause of the delay—Baghdad.”

Professor Raymond Tanter, President of the IPC and former member of the National Security Council staff in the Reagan administration, inferred Baghdad’s hidden agenda for denying minimum humanitarian life support: ”

1) Provide a rationale for forcible relocation within Iraq of remaining Ashraf residents by the Iraqi military;

2) Wear down resolve of Liberty residents so they ‘voluntarily’ repatriate to Iran rather than resettle to friendly third countries where they can continue as a political force that threatens survival of the clerical regime in Tehran; and

3) Evacuate Ashraf but keep former residents at Liberty to give space and time for the Iraqi military to place weapons in Ashraf to reinforce the false claim the MEK maintains an intent to commit terrorism and justify its continuation on the U.S. terrorist list. Such a hidden agenda based on fabricated premises is an illegitimate basis for denying minimum humanitarian life support to individuals listed as asylum seekers by the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees.”

Image Courtesy of  Elvert Barnes

The article Humanitarian Conditions Asked for Iranian Dissidents at U.S. Camps appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

For decades, Iran has been a subject of multilateral international sanctions which have failed to produce cumulative effects on influencing Iran’s policy on its nuclear program. The “toughest sanctions to date,” as quoted by President Obama, will come into full effect on 28th June 2012. Once again, sanctions fall under the umbrella of attempting to prevent Iran from pursuing its nuclear proliferation program.

According to an International Atomic Agency Report 2011, Iran is aiming towards obtaining nuclear weapons and the punitive methods used by the U.S. government will not just subvert the central bank of Iran but will also have an effect on its energy and transport sector. Pressure has also been exerted on other governments to join in with the implementation of a fourth round of UN sanctions on Iran.

Ranking fifth in the world in its oil reserves and second in gas reserves, Iran is clearly an important energy resource base and a major supplier of oil and natural gas to countries like India, China and Japan. In January 2012, the European Union froze assets of Iran’s central bank within its zone and will be extending oil shipment ban later in July. The severity of these sanctions has made it impossible for companies, banks and governments to do any business dealings with Iran.

The debate about whether or not Iran has a right to nuclear energy is as old as Queen Elizabeth’s ascent to the throne. For Iran, acquisition of nuclear energy has become a matter of national pride and in response to this fourth round of multilateral sanctions taken by the UN in 2010, Iran has responded by stating its right to peaceful nuclear energy.

Iran is a study of complexity and intrigue. It is difficult to understand a society that tethers between the modernism of Shah’s time and adherence to the early years of Islam. Iran’s image in the global world is tarnished, and according to a BBC poll in 2012, Iran tops their list as the country that offers “the most negative influence in the world.”

With the collapse of Saddam’s Baathist regime and the defeat of the Taliban in Afghanistan, an altered and delicate balance of power exists in Southwest Asia. Iran’s strategic importance has made itself a point of convergence of the interests of major players, particularly the US. One only needs to look at the map of the Middle East to know the strategic importance of Iran to the US.

In last 10 years, the strong and divisive fissure in U.S. foreign policy to coerce Tehran into adapting a new stance on the war on terrorism has also failed. Sanctions imposed by the Bush administration in 2006 barred Iran from dealing with US financial institutions, even indirectly. As a result, continuous rounds of sanctions have severed diplomatic ties between the two countries. The restart of the Iranian nuclear program and the US retaliation in terms of sanctions, further induces strong images of adversaries that are monolithically aggressive, diabolical, and untrustworthy. For adversaries who hold equally negative images of the other, the ability for each side to misperceive the enemy’s intent has become more pervasive. This means that it is highly possible that the mutual fear between the US and Iran may result in war.

In the present, the impending talks of attacks on Iran are chiefly driven by concern over the safety of US energy supplies, which is similar to the 2003 Iraq war. However, it is certain that the US will never mention oil as a reason for attacking Iran and furthermore, weapons of mass destruction will be cited as the principal justification for war. It is a concern that waging a war against Iran will worsen the cycle of war and violence in the Middle East since that has been continuing since time immemorial.

There is a pursuing debate among international community about the efficacy of these sanctions. With the impending global recession, and ongoing crisis in the Middle East and North African regions (MENA), boycotting Iranian oil will have an adverse effect on world supplies, especially for developing countries. Even though Iranian oil exports are down by 25%, the government has refused to compromise its stance on its nuclear program.

We shouldn’t forget that Iranian anger over centuries of foreign meddling in their sovereign affairs hasn’t yet disseminated. Iranians have yet to learn to forgive the US and its allies over the ousting of Mossadegh in 1953. If the international media can manipulate and present Iran as something out of the stone ages, then Iranian media has also been ambivalent in showing America and its allies as their version of the axis of evil.

Also, the Shiite faction across the world is fiercely loyal to Iran and has taken its impalpable oath of allegiance to the Ayatollah of Iran. Ali Khamenei’s term is coming to an end, but to think that the new government will be easy to manipulate like the puppet governments of Afghanistan and Pakistan could merely be more wishful thinking. Already, the sanctions have fueled bitter resentment against countries participating in them. Perhaps it’s a time for Euro-Anglo-American bodies to renew their policies and ascertain a modus vivendi that will build ties and, more importantly, will guarantee the stability of the Gulf region.

Economic sanctions throughout history have had corrosive effects on the population of a sanctioned country. Though the government of Iran is confident in its ability to ‘weather’ such sanctions, this is the biggest challenge the country will face since the end of the bloody Iran-Iraq war. With the evolving recession crisis worldwide, it will be interesting to see how Iran will overcome these further imposed sanctions.

Image Courtesy of  [john]

The article Isolated Iran vs. the Rest of the World appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Outside of the U.S., if you read the book “Diplomacy” by Henry Kissinger, you realize that Democrats and Republicans do not follow parallel or even similar foreign policies.

On November 6, 2012, the colors of red and blue will once again confront to each other and spearheading the event will most likely be President Obama and Republican candidate Mitt Romney. Two different schools of thought, fighting to occupy a seat in the White House. It could bring a complete change in American foreign policy and consequently spread to affect the policies of their allies.

Foreign policy of a powerful nation has repeatedly throughout history proven to have great influence in the countries that surround it. In Spain, they know through experience that the support of the right-wing President, Jose Maria Aznar, in the Iraq war contributed to the final result of the Spanish elections and allowed the Socialist party to win the Presidential post, despite popular beliefs.

And the trend goes the other way around too – who knows if the Arab Spring and President Obama’s support of the people in the Arab world will have built relations that could influence new movements in the future.

Even though the Republicans have always had a more clear foreign policy, while Democrats have had a more changing vision, it seems that many trust President Obama’s foreign policy so far. Obama’s vision of the world helped him win his first elections by declaring his opposition of the war in Iraq.

That could happen again. Even today Obama’s supporters give him credit for his fight against terrorism and for inspiring democracy in the Arab world: Osama Bin Laden, Anuar al Aulaki, and Muamar Gaddafi are out of the game, Al Qaeda is against the ropes, and three Middle Eastern countries have begun the transition into democracy. Last but not least, no more American soldier will die in Iraq after this year, and a date has been fixed for the complete removal of American troops from Afghanistan.

In spite of all the good results yielded by the Obama administration’s foreign policy, the flipside is ever present. Republicans accuse President Obama of compromising American interests in the Middle East by supporting the Arab Spring and other movements for uprising. Some are also criticizing Obama for not supporting the movement until it was clear that success was within reach.

It has been further questioned why there is no support for democratic movements in other dictatorial regimes such as Saudi Arabia, Yemen or Bahrain, all traditional allies of the U.S.A.

It is still widely recognized that the American support to democracies in the Middle East could open up new opportunities for the United States and its relations with Arab countries. Still, it is to be seen if the American people can agree with this policy in the long run and value it when they vote this fall.

The article American Foreign Policy Key in US Presidential Election appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.

Israeli president Shimon Peres recently claimed an attack on Iran is closer than ever, and poses the ”biggest threat” to the world right now. A leak alleges Israeli PM Netanyahu will be carrying out an airstrike upon Iranian nuclear facilities’ suspected of developing weapons of war. Netanyahu’s advisors have not denied these allegations, and members of his administration have undergone polygraphs to help determine the source of the leak.

This would not be the first Israeli preemptive strike of this sort. The bombing of Osirak, Iraq in 1981, (condemned by Reagan) and North-Korean influenced Syrian reactors in 2007 (Operation Orchard) were made against countries accused of developing nuclear arms, and without American approval per the memoirs of George W. Bush.

As further forewarning of imminent conflict, Israel has test-launched their Jericho 3 missiles west over the Mediterranean during training exercises. The weapon has been unseen since the only known test in 2008, and capable of traveling 4,000-10,000km with the ability to carry nuclear warheads. Joint exercises with the Italian air force at the Sardinian NATO base and evacuation practices in Tel Aviv may give further credence to a strike, or a simple flaunting of Israeli military might to rogue Iran.

Israel, the US, and the UK allege Iran of satellite images harboring steel containers related to nuclear arms, and computer models simulating nuclear weaponry. The UN and the International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) have inspected Iran’s radioactive material in the past, accusing Iran of enriching uranium in centrifuges. IAEA is expected to provide a report November 8 detailing what programs are being studied.

In Iranian defense, President Ahmadinejad claims its nuclear engineering is only intended for peaceful practice to better the lives of citizens, alleging the West of disabling their nuclear reactors with a computer virus and assassinations of their scientists. He blames Washington for creating conspiracies to discredit Iran and cause strife with the Saudis complicit with the West.

“The U.S. fears Iran’s capability,” he told Egyptian daily al-Akhbar, “Iran will not permit (anyone from making) a move against it.” He further makes the allegation that Israel owns over 300 nuclear weapons and admits imposed US financial sanctions have affected the Iranian banking sector.

It is unclear what reaction the US would take on an Israeli attack. An American strike on Iran was planned in 2004; the House passed resolution 398, “to use all appropriate means to deter, dissuade, and prevent Iran from acquiring nuclear weapons.” The plan fell apart in the Senate, and nearly created a campaign simultaneous of Bush’s invasion of Iraq.

Zbiegnew Brezinski claims an Israeli airstrike would lead the US into the war regardless, as they would be an accessory in allowing Israel to fly over restricted airspace above Iraq, and controlled by US air force.

“This would ignite war in Iraq, make Afghanistan even more impossible, and quadruple oil prices. Europe would become even more dependent on Russia for energy, and even conflict with Russia and China, who deals with Iran over oil,” said the former advisor to Jimmy Carter.

Eldad Pardo of the Hebrew University claims Europe, the USA, the Arab world and China would all respond to nuclear threat. Meanwhile, the French foreign minister thinks an attack would destabilize the region.

Israel has been accused by the UN of producing illegal white phosphorous, and failing to declare chemical and biological warfare capabilities. Israel is not recognized as a Nuclear Weapons State by the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty, although is known to own them. The 16 clerics presiding over Ahmadinejad claim Israel does not have the right to exist on a political map.

This may be the most dangerous conflict in the world right now.

The article World Braces for Middle-Eastern Showdown appeared first on The Toonari Post - News, Powered by the People!.